TPS PCN at Jempsons Store, Rye

bucklag

Hi

I have just sent off my appeal to TPS for this PCN and am awaiting the POPLA code for my appeal to them.

The PCN was for a 24 minute overstay in a free for 2 hours car park. The car park was unlit (pitch black) and the only sign readable on entrance I'm informed said parking Tarrifs apply 9am-4pm. The observation times on the PCN state from 18:00:30PM. the Driver also told me that the only time they see the parking terms for the car park was when they were returning to the car park and entered the store where there was full terms and conditions well readable and surrounded by light stating the maximum stay was 2 hours.

Before I start up my appeal to POPLA, I was just wondering the 4 pieces of evidence supplied on the TPS website for appealing my ticket are 2 of a car entering and leaving the car park and 2 of my licence plate. I say 2 pictures of a car as the first 1 is just headlights and you cannot make out the licence plate and the 2nd one is a dark picture of a car which again you cannot make out the licence plate. Is this a starting point for appeal or irrelevant?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Gary

Redx

the car pictures could be relevant as to if it was light or dark at the time, so indicate a time when it may or may not be possible to read SIGNAGE etc (plus if the signage was illuminated or not if they indicate dusk or night time)

ANPR pictures are always dark as explained in pranksters blogs , becasue they are only indicative of the number plate VRN and so are anpr pictures, not photo quality pictures like selfies or holiday snaps

Fruitcake

I'm assuming by TPS you mean Total Parking Solutions, a BPA member. There are so many parking scumpanies with similar names or initials that it is best to quote the full and accurate name so we know exactly who you are talking about.


What were the grounds for your initial appeal? Did you use the BPA template from the NEWBIES or your own bespoke appeal? If the latter did you ensure that you didn't give away who was driving.


PoPLA appeals are normally based any about four to six points, so poor photo'smight only be one of several points you could use. All explained in the NEWBIES thread.

bucklag

Thanks for your quick responses.

Yes it was Total Parking Solutions I received the PCN from. Yes I used the template in the newbies thread for my initial appeal to TPS.

Once I have my POPLA code I will use the newbies thread again to get a draft appeal to POPLA that I will put on this thread. I was just hoping for a heads up on the evidence provided to see if that was a starting point.

It was pitch black and the signs were not visible without walking right up to them.

Thanks again for getting back to me so quick, this forum was a great help in getting my last PCN appealed successfully just last week, all the input and help is and was greatfully appreciated.

:beer:

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Pretty much everything you can use in your favour is relevant in a POPLA appeal, and the darkness in the photos supports your argument as keeper, that the driver could not have read terms or learnt anything about a parking charge before parking, whcih is when the contract is formed (not later inside the store).

The car park was unlit (pitch black) and the only sign readable on entrance I'm informed said parking Tarrifs apply 9am-4pm. The observation times on the PCN state from 18:00:30PM

Are you sure that signa 'at the entrance' wasn't just a Council on street sign? I saw a TPS evidence pack once where the entrance had a Council sign right next to it which could cause confusion.

If that entrance sign says nothing about a parking charge 'fine' or a max stay then use a photo of it in the dark if you can get some (and of the dark car park, various angles). If it's pitch black then there cannot be any contract communicated adequately at all.

Redx

or as Paddy McGuiness says , no lightey , no likey (and no contract)

but your popla appeal WILL INCLUDE all the other salient appeal points too, like no landowner authority etc

bucklag

Hi, I have now received my POPLA appeal code and drafted my appeal, if you could look at it for me before i send it please, I was unsure wether to add No genuine pre-estimate of loss anymore.

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Total Parking Solutions on 19 Feburary 2016 at 18:00, at Jempsons Store, Rye TN31 7AF. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.
3) The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed.
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.

1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Total Parking Solutions must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Total Parkng Solutions to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Total Parking Solutions and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Total Parking Solutions.




2) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability
As this was a Pay/Display car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed!

I can see from the limited information before me in the NTK, only that the car stayed for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was 'either/or' an overstay or failure to pay. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, or paid too little, or paid only for half an hour or an hour, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

These are the omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid...'

The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.


3) The signage was not compliant so there was no valid contract formed between Total Parking Solutions and the driver
The only signs are up on poles, away from the Pay & Display machine, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car. This Car Park is Unlit and due to the time of arrival compounded the issue of poor sinage. Total Parking Solutions place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder, holding a torch, to try to read them. Any photos supplied by Total Parking Solutions to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is nor the fact the Total Parking Solutions signs are one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park. As such, I require Total Parking Solutions to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photoshopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding a customer.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and there is no evidence that this was just one visit
Total Parking Solutions evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and a car outside of the car park which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening or even the 2nd image being of the car driving past the car park. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event.

As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit (possibly even with two drivers since the car has more than one family member who drives it). Or the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out to get change before returning (and of course the ANPR cameras show only the first and last visits). The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.
b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times. I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. All camera records could be checked and this Operator would still be unable to refute the 'double visit' possibility, since they don't bother to record continuous footage, this not being CCTV. If I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.

Further, this Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored and used. Total Parking Solutions have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and how the data will be used and stored. . I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance. Indeed, I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Total Parking Solutions present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,


xxxxxxxxxx {registered keeper's name...}

bucklag

Thanks in advance for looking through it for me.

Redx

clause #13 Grace Periods for a start

driving round and looking for a space, plus exiting, isnt parking time

if it was ANPR data capture, make sure you query the use of that data, should be on the signage

possibly more items too so look at this list I compiled of recent popla wins in post #34 here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390160

does your popla appeal have all of those in ? or as many as possible ?

so

Landowner Authority
GRACE PERIODS
SIGNAGE INFO on the data collection use of ANPR captured data

any issues with POFA2012 or NTK flaws or failures ?

these are the issues people are using to win, so use them

an overstay on a car park certainly brings in grace periods at either side of the parking period

also I see some spelling issues, mainly because I do these all the time, like no I for Indigo in Parking for example, please proof read it

ps:- Bullet point numbering incorrect, there is no 5), it should be 4)

System

Have you been to Jempsons and ask them to cancel?

Coupon-mad

Remove this from your top summary of numbering:

No genuine pre-estimate of loss

Add the BPA CoP 7.3 quoted, into your point #1.

Also you need more flaws in the NtK.

TPS don't use the paragraph 9 wording from Sch 4 so add to the above, it is not enough. Copy para 9 and write beside every line that TPS have not complied (they may have with one or two).

POPLA disagree that NTKs don't show the parking change. They have, however, found in favour of people re NTKs where the 28 day period says 'within' instead of 'beginning with'. See the latest POPLA Decisions thread posts!